public or private?

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Look through your daily/local paper, there will be a
column "public notices" which you ought to read just in
case a local road is to be closed. In your village is a
"public notice board" which you ought to scan in case
there is anything new. Go into a pub (or a shop), there is
a door marked "private" and unless you are staff you do
not go through
it.So when you go off road and see a notice headed
"private" should you read it? Surely if the land owner
wanted you to read "keep out, trespassers will be
persecuted" then they ought to label the notices
"PUBLIC"?

IanB

Should you read it? Too late you've read it. It's a public
notice (in that it's in an area where you can read, and it's
meant to be read), and the notice is that the land (or
whatever) is private.

I guess a bus stop is a public notice, its telling you
where to stand in order to catch a bus to your destination.
Bus stops however do not have words at the top that say
'Public Notice'.

It's obvious really I think, we don't need to be told.

I'm confused, as you can see :-)

--
Mark (MSA) This post is packaged by intellectual weight, not
volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during
transmission

IanB posted ...

Quoted message said:

Look through your daily/local paper, there will be a
column "public notices" which you ought to read just in
case a local road is to be closed. In your village is a
"public notice board" which you ought to scan in case
there is anything new. Go into a pub (or a shop), there is
a door marked "private" and unless you are staff you do
not go through
it.So when you go off road and see a notice headed
"private" should you read it? Surely if the land owner
wanted you to read "keep out, trespassers will be
persecuted" then they ought to label the notices
"PUBLIC"?

What happened to common sense ?

If you've read it, then it's a public notice. The fact that
it's stating that a particular piece of land is Private
Property is something of which the publicly viewable notice
made you aware, so it's done it's job admirably ... It
shouldn't need any more adding to it ... 😉

Or are you trying to find a (already closed) loophole for
having already been 'done' for trespass ?

--
Paul

(8(|) Homer rocks .. 😉

"IanB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Look through your daily/local paper, there will be a
column "public notices" which you ought to read just in
case a local road is to be closed. In your village is a
"public notice board" which you ought to scan in case
there is anything new. Go into a pub (or a shop), there is
a door marked "private" and unless you are staff you do
not go through
it.So when you go off road and see a notice headed
"private" should you read it? Surely if the land owner
wanted you to read "keep out, trespassers will be
persecuted" then they ought to label the notices
"PUBLIC"?

IanB

Any offers to try this in a court of law? BTW trespassers
will be persecuted is more of a threat as trespassers cannot
be prosecuted unless they commit damage.

In article
<[email hidden]>, Martinm2
@wcms.org.uk says...

Quoted message said:

BTW trespassers will be persecuted is more of a
threat as trespassers cannot be prosecuted unless
they commit damage.

Does prosecuted mean criminal prosecution only? I understood
that if the land owner can be bothered , you can be
subjected to a civil prosecution. If you cause damage, then
its a criminal matter and HMG can prosecute.
--
.paul

If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.

paul said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
Martinm2 @wcms.org.uk says...

Quoted message said:

BTW trespassers will be persecuted is more of a threat as
trespassers cannot be prosecuted unless they commit
damage.

Does prosecuted mean criminal prosecution only? I
understood that if the land owner can be bothered , you
can be subjected to a civil prosecution. If you cause
damage, then its a criminal matter and HMG can prosecute.

IANAL, but I believe the landowner can only sue you in a
civil court for reparation to damage caused by you on his
land. If he catches you on his land, he can insist that you
leave by the shortest route (which he can pick). If he
thinks you have caused criminal damage, he can make a civil
arrest (or, of course, call the police), and the CPS will
decide whether to prosecute.

In general, of course, it's far less hassle just to turn
around and find somewhere else to cycle...

Regards,

Pete.

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Connolly

(') said:

paul said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
Martinm2 @wcms.org.uk says...

Quoted message said:

BTW trespassers will be persecuted is more of a threat
as trespassers cannot be prosecuted unless they commit
damage.

Does prosecuted mean criminal prosecution only? I
understood that if the land owner can be bothered , you
can be subjected to a civil prosecution. If you cause
damage, then its a criminal matter and HMG can prosecute.

IANAL,

Indeed...

Quoted message said:

but I believe the landowner can only sue you in a civil
court for reparation to damage caused by you on his land.
If he catches you on his land, he can insist that you
leave by the shortest route (which he can pick). If he
thinks you have caused criminal damage, he can make a
civil arrest (or, of course, call the police), and the CPS
will decide whether to prosecute.

Without (for once) wishing to be inflammatory, can I remind
you that this is a UK group, and that within the UK there
are at least three independent and separate sets of land
access laws, so that any general statement about rights of
access to land are definitely false.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗ Wannabe a Web designer?
<URL:http://userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/199-
71206.html

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

... within the UK there are at least three independent
and separate sets of land access laws, so that any
general statement about rights of access to land are
definitely false.

Except that one, of course. :-)

--
Dave...